INDIAN POLITY

CASE STUDY BASED ANALYSIS OF

ARTICLES 14,19 AND 21
 Anant Jain
Div -A
Roll no - A014
 Romesh Thapar

State of Madras Case

(Article -
19)

01
 Article 19
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution states the “Protection of certain rights regarding
freedom of speech, etc.”

Citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression, to assemble peacefully
and without arms, to form associations or unions or co-operative societies, to move
freely throughout the territory of India, to reside and settle in any part of the territory
of India;and to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business.
 FACTS OF THE CASE:

Romesh Thapar, a journalist with Communist ideologies, encountered opposition from Prime
01
Minister Jawaharlal Nehru due to his critical stance on foreign policy and the articles
published in the "Crossroads" newspaper.

02
The government imposed a ban on "Crossroads" sale or distribution in Madras using
Section 91 of the Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949.

Thapar approached the Supreme Court through Article 32, filing a writ petition challenging
03
the government's order as a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of speech or
expression under Article 19, Clause 1, Sub-clause (a)
LEGAL
ISSUES
Whether the order under Section 9(1-A) of the
01
Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act was in
violation of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution or
did it fall within the restrictions provided in Article
19(2)?

02 Whether the impugned provision was void under

Article 13(1) of the Constitution by virtue of it being
in violation of the fundamental right of free speech
and expression?
DECISION OF SUPREME COURT:
• The Supreme Court has passed an order since section 9(1A) of MMPO ACT is violating
Article 19, Clause 1, Sub-clause (a) of the right to freedom of speech and expression.

• The concern is raised regarding the Madras Maintenance of Public OrderAct, specifically
Section 91A, and its constitutional validity.

• The argument references the Constituent Assembly debates and the Government of India
Act 1935, asserting that Section 91A violates fundamental rights .

The Supreme Court bench declares Section 91A unconstitutional.

State of West Bengal

Anwar Ali Sarkar

(Article - 14)
 Article 14
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution enshrines the principle of equality before the
law. It states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. This means that the
government cannot discriminate against individuals on the basis of religion, race,
caste, sex, or place of birth. It ensures that all individuals are treated equally under
the law without any discrimination.
 FACTS OF THE CASE:

• Anwar Ali Sarkar was a resident of West Bengal and was suspected of being involved in various
illegal activities, including possession of firearms and distributing seditious literature.

• In 1949, the West Bengal government passed an ordinance called the West Bengal Special Courts
Ordinance, which allowed the government to set up special courts to try people suspected of
certain crimes, including those mentioned above.
• Anwar Ali Sarkar was charged under this ordinance and was
to be tried by a special court set up under the same ordinance.

• Anwar Ali Sarkar challenged the validity of the ordinance

and the constitutionality of the special court in the Calcutta
High Court.

• The High Court upheld the validity of the ordinance and the
special court. Anwar Ali Sarkar then appealed to the Supreme
Court.
 Supreme Courts Judgement:

The Supreme Court declared Section 5(1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950,
unconstitutional. The court ruled that the provision granted arbitrary power to the State
Government, violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which ensures equality before the
law.

As the Act gave arbitrary, uncontrolled, unguided power to the State Government which could
be used unreasonably and in a biased manner and along with that restricted the equal
protection of laws. The Act failed to provide reasonable classification between cases, classes of
cases, offences and classes of offences.”
 A.K. Gopalan

The State of Madras

(Article -
21)
 Article
Article -- 21
21
Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law. To deprive a person of his life or
personal liberty -
There must be a law
It should lay down a procedure
The executive should follow this procedure while depriving a person of his life or
personal liberty.
 FACTS OF THE CASE

The case involved A.K. Gopalan, a political opponent of the government,

who was illegally detained by the Madras State government in December
1947 under the Preventive Detention Act.

A.K. Gopalan challenged his detention through a writ petition

under Article 32, asserting that the Preventive Detention Act was
unconstitutional.
• The key legal issues in the case
included the violation of fundamental
rights under Article 19, Clause 1, Sub-
clause (d), and Article 21, which
guarantees the right to life and
personal liberty.

• The Act's provision allowing detention without specifying the

reason was contested as it impinged on the right to freedom
of movement.
 SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT

• The Supreme Court, consisting of a six-judge constitutional bench, decided that Article 21
pertains only to the physical body's liberty, distinct from the freedoms under Article 19.

• The court maintained that Article 19 and Article 21 should be interpreted separately, with
Article 21 covering the total and complete loss of personal liberty.

• However, his dissenting opinion was overruled in the subsequent 1977 case ofManeka
Gandhi vs. Union of India, where the Supreme Court emphasized the interconnected
nature of Articles 21, 19, and 14, forming a "golden triangle" crucial for protecting
fundamental rights.
Thank You